Skip to main content

About your Search

20121205
20121213
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
oath: the obama white house and the supreme court." so what exactly does he mean? you've studied justice scalia. you have studied the law. when he talks about the reduction to the absurd. >> well, it's actually a very interesting controversy that may be changing before our very eyes, wolf. because historically one of the grounds that congress can pass a law is they say, we morally disapprove. moral disapproval is not an aprop pree grounds for a government action but over time the court has said certain kinds of moral disapproval is no longer allowed. you can't simply disapprove of blacks and whites going to school together and pass a law. the question now is, is moral disapproval of homosexuality a legitimate ground for the government doing anything? that's really one of the main issues in this case coming out. >> that's his argument, that that's why he's opposed to it? is that what you're saying? >> well, what he's saying is that the legislature, whether it's a state legislature or congress can say we morally disapprove of homosexuality, thus we will say they can't get married t
place in november 2008, a week after the election. obama won the white house. but gays and lesbians lost the right to marry in california. >> we're trying to figure out what we do next. then we thought about the idea of a possible legal challenge to proposition 8, and serendipitously, a friend of my wife's came by the table. >> the friend suggested they would find an ally in her former brother-in-law who turned out to be ted olsen, a towering figure in the conservative legal movement. so that stunned you, right? >> yes, it more than stunned me. it stunned me, but i said if this is true, this is the home run of all times. i mean, the idea that ted olsen, this arch conservative, the solicitor general for george bush who had argued bush v. gore and basically put me in bed for a couple days, i was so depressed after bush v. gore, was interested in gay rights. i thought, let's check it out. >> didn't you have any doubts about ted olsen? >> you know, they say that politics makes strange bed fellows. you don't have a stranger bed fellow than me and ted olsen. >> i was skeptical. >> chad griffin
zero dark 30, the movie, the critic laud for it lauds obama. will we get a obama film? maybe if they make president bush president again. we can't blame susan rice because she is black. insidious racism perpetrated by white lib who see skin color instead of achievement. go after clapper. a white male, no one cares about him. will that satisfy chris ma chews? they no longer speak truth to power. only thing is the what they spring from, a clown car with those who can stare at dead americans and say ahh. i've never seen so many hacks try to kill a story. if life was an obama dinner party, benghazi is the smelly homeless guy everyone wants to bounce. dana, this is your favorite story, as mine. how can the media continue ignoring this? will they? 'canes yes. >> greg: good answer. okay, eric? >> dana: but i do think because of this story there will be a couple of things that happen. one will be that rice will not be named secretary of state. and two is i hope and you saw op ed in the "wall street journal" today about security at diplomatic missions around the world. they have been
with the president, house speaker john boehner says the white house is stone walling. >> when it comes to the fiscal cliff that's threatening our economy and threatening jobs, the white house is has wasted another week. >> reporter: this morning in his weekly address, president obama is holding a hard line on raising rates for the wealthy. >> and if we're serious about protecting middle-class families, then we're also going to have to ask the wealthiest americans to pay higher tax rates. that's one principle i won't compromise on. >> reporter: but how much higher could be the key. the top tax rate is set to rise from 35% to 39.6% on january 1st. when asked if a middle ground could be found, both boehner and biden showed some wiggle room. >> the top brackets have to go up. it's not a negotiable issue. theoretically we can negotiate how far up. >> reporter: at another local restaurant, the owner has seen enough of washington gridlock. >> i wish those lawmakers would get their [ bleep ] together and get it done and try to help everybody. it would be good if they could do it before the holidays are over
with somebody very important. >> brian: yes. last year congress and the white house backed military cuts and the new fiscal cliff counteroffer to president obama is hinting at billions more. $500 billion over the next ten years! in addition to the stuff they already cut. joining us now it expand this fox news contributor and author of "heros proved," colonel oliver north. he says this could be an unmitigated disaster for national security. as you travel around in the bus on the book tour, this has got to be bothering you more than anything else. this is your legacy. these are the people that you've covered and this is how prepared we are for a future conflict. >> just over the weekend we saw the rescue of an american doctor from colorado in afghanistan by a u.s. navy raid seal team. right? same guys i was with just a few weeks ago out in afghanistan working with afghan troops. what you're about to see in this sequester are cuts that will make those operations impossible. benghazi. people were talking why didn't they react to benghazi? because there was no marine expedition in the area.
? the president or congress. i would make the argument that obama is clearly the one. certainly democrats are probably little bit more to blame. two years ago, democrats ran the entire town. they had a filibuster proof majority in the senate. they control the house and white house. if they wanted to cut spending at that time, they could have done so. republicans -- they could've done it over every republican objection and they could've gotten everything they wanted. they didn't do that. but i do think it's worth remembering that if you go back 10 years, president bush, and the republican-controlled congress, then acted too expensive for us that were not paid for. the thing that is worse today with obamacare, which i don't think we'll actually get paid for with these sudden efficiencies we will find in the federal government, which the federal government has never found before -- is that wars eventually end. entitlement programs like obamacare go on forever. just for those reasons, i do think democrats are far worse. all of these people have some blood on their hands. greg: you said that a
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)